Test Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike on North Korea

Timber,

Quite right about naval nuclear mines. I'm quite sure that none are deployed as of this date.

Perception,

If it will make you happier, then alright increase the number of civilian casualties expected in an artillery bombardment of Seoul. Only the very best modern artillery can reach south of the Han, where the heart of the city lies. Seoul isn't a paper city, but one of masonry, steel and glass like most modern urban cities. Where did you come up with the idea that there are 14,000 tubes pointed at, and capable of striking Seoul? I have pretty good information, and that is a new number to me. I have no doubt that north of the Han there would be wide spread damage, damage south of the river should be much less. There will be numerous civilian casualties, it's really just guess work as to how many. I am not insensitive to those deaths, but they are a part of the cost of war - the cost that must be paid if a greater tragedy is to be averted later.

However, it is highly unlikely that 7 million people will die out of a population of 7 million due to an artillery bombardment, even one using WP rounds.

You ask why not evacuate the civilian population? Why not herd all the alley cats in your neighborhood down to the vet's for their shots? Evacuation prior to the opening of hostilities would be virtually impossible. People have to live their lives and will not willingly leave an area just because the government says it might be wise. Once the bullets start flying there isn't any reasonably means of evacuating more than a small number of people. People will start leaving when the shooting starts. They will crowd the roads south into the countryside. The railroads will be packed, and whatever river transportation is available will be used to move people down river. The airports will cease to operate. Those caught north of the river are most at risk, but even there most will escape the immediate battle.

Of more concern, is the difficulty of military movement when the roads are clogged with escaping refugees. Rail traffic south would prevent rail traffic north carrying troops, ammunition and supplies. Motor convoys north might be slowed considerably in reaching important positions.

The figure I used was 7,000,000 out of 10,000,000 and the downtown is concrete and steel but what about where they live?

And as I said 4000 rounds or less of phosphorous could set the city on fire.

But then you have made it obvious you are impatient with thoughts of the civilian populace when military strategy is engaged in the making of history. Jong is interested in killing as many civilians as possible because of the food they would consume needlessly if he wins and of course he intends to win otherwise he would not start the war.

You also said that as they cross over the DMZ they will enter the "kill" zones designated as artillery kill zones. But then you said it was for airpower to keep the enemy "Bottled up" somewhere. Now I know it would be nice but you can't have it both ways. It would appear the air force is to let just enough through for the army to kill them with artillery but to keep the rest of them "bottled up" until you're ready for them. Am I correct in interpreting all this from your plan?

In the meantime what is my air force doing while you are killing this million man army with a few soldiers and some artillery. We are orbiting waiting for the call that will surely come.

The ground south of the DMZ has for many years been carefully prepared to present difficulties to any army coming south. It is heavily mined, and pre-registered for artillery. Extremely detailed plans and continguency plans for defending the ground has existed for years. Part of that planning has been to heavily bomb and strafe existing North Korean positions and the corridors down which they must come. That isn't a novel part of the plan I've outlined, its the best our combined staffs have been able to design -- and it is good, and likely to repel an invasion from the North long enough for Allied forces to converge on the area.

If I've proposed anything in the least "novel", it is the marine operation toward Pyong-Yang far north of the DMZ where most of the DPRK aggressors are located. The marine operation in the enemies rear can be expected to surprise and confuse them to some extent. Even if the DPRK's best troops along the DMZ only hesitate, that will reduce and relieve pressure on the MLR. If any part of the attacking forces turn to protect their rear, or try to stop the fall of Pyong-Yang, the effect will be very good for our side. My strategy is: nail their tongues to the floor and kick'em in the ass. How fast can the marines get ashore and take Pyong-Yang? That is really the 24 dollar question. If I've errored, it is probably in over estimating how fast and effective a marine division can operate.

Any Marines out there want to hazard a guess as to what's needed to pull off the end-run to Pyong-Yand and Kim's Presidential Palace?

A sizable part of Seoul's population live in huge concrete block apartment complexes. These complexes are a good illustration of one point perspective; they really do diminish in the far distance. The apartment complexes are identical, and can only be told apart by the large number that appears on each one. Very, very impersonal and crowded as each apartment is by our standards very small. Only the very poorest, and admittedly there are a lot of them, live in houses constructed of light wood, paper and tin. There isn't a lot of wood used, because it is too expensive. I don't know exactly what the population of Seoul is, but if you say 10 million that could easily be correct I suppose.

In any case your propensity for over stating the case and using emotionally weighted terms, is again evident in estimating 7 million civilian casualties in Seoul from a North Korean artillery barrage. Upon reflection, I am probably underestimating civilian casualties because I want desperately to believe that our family members there will have a good chance of at least escaping with their lives. If they can not, would I think about this differently? No, I would not, could not. Personal sacrifice is sometimes necessary for the greater good.

Asherman

Bravo ---you've got everything covered for this great army victory--I'm sure glad you don't need the air force because I just ordered them all home to watch this picnic on CNN.

As was the case a half century ago. It was not the first instance of hapless refugees used as offensive weapon. DPRK no doubt anticipates a similar scenario. Current Air Mobile Doctrine and Stand-Off-Attack capability alter the exercise significantly.

A Peninsular War will horribly damage, but not completely devastate ROK. DPRK may be assumed likely to suffer far greater damage. Perhaps the most horrifying thing about such a war is that it is clearly winnable, and therefore is an option if not compellingly attractive at least one which does not merit out-of-hand rejection. It would be expensive in every coin, but its feasibility is in no doubt.


Kim plays a dangerous game, perhaps a game of which he is no master. Asherman posits one plausible strategy for winning a war against him. Other equally plausible scenarios exist. Kim is no doubt aware of many such scenarios, and of no scenario assuring him personal survival let alone prospect of success. Perhaps our best hope for peace may be that Kim not be suicidal. Never the less, Kim perceives himself to be negotiating. To return to the poker analogy, his hand is ultimately unwinnable, but he has the cards to bid up the stakes before being forced from the game. He apparently feels comfortable that the power players in the game may simply tire of the hand and fold, giving him the pot while it yet contains relatively little in the way of raises. Essentially, that is the only way he can stay in the game.


Time is Kim's strongest ally. The longer he can put off his own extinction, the less likely it becomes. Many months of words will be fired off before any munitions are likely to be launched. Kim himself has real personal interest in avoiding what would for him be a patently unwinnable war and a matter of great personal inconvenience. He may be expected to attempt to keep tension high, but to endeavor to not in fact cause an attack on him. His knowledge of the history of his nation's behavior among other nations leads him to adopt this very course.

Kim is playing for time. He will play slowly, to drag out the game in hope of picking up a minor pot. Its pretty much up to the other players whether he stays in the game, and any one of them is capable of instantly raising the stakes beyond Kim's reach if sufficiently aggravated. I believe he already may have overbet his hand. It wil be a while before the last card is shown, however.


timber

Timber,

I completely agree on all counts. My scenario is certainly only one of many, and that's good because it means that the DPRK must defend against them all. Time is indeed the essence, how shall it be used wisely or frittered away.

Perception,

I've never said the air force isn't necessary, it is an intregal part of our Combined Forces Doctrine. In my scenario, the Army fixes the enemy in place (a supporting role) while the Marine Corps drives the victory home. All branches of our forces have their part to play in every operation that we will likely be involved in over the next few years. Branch rivalry is counter productive.

Bravo Asherman

You said: Branch rivalry is counter-productive---Would you please remind every Army general in the pentagon of that bit of wisdom?

Re: Recent wrangling over a huge army gun that was immovable on the battlefield.

LOL ... that was pretty much the idea behind Desert Storm. A brilliant plan got thrown out of synch because The Corps unexpectedly "drove home the victory" while The Army was still preparing to "Fix the enemy in place". That threw the timing way off. As a fully integrated, self-sufficient, mobile heavy assault force, it is hard to imagine the equal of a US Marine Corps Division with its customary Naval Support.



timber

Perception,

Actually in my experience it is the Air Force who most often thinks that no other service is needed on the modern battlefield. You have said as much yourself on several occassions. Oh, how we all wish that wonder weapons might eliminate friendly casualties, it just aint in the cards. I'm a big fan of Combined Joint Operations, this doctrine is one of the cornerstones to our present miltiary might. BTW, I notice that in your last several posts you have become terribly concerned over the loss of Korean lives. What changed your mind about how little Korean life is worth?

You are refering to the Chieftain. Too large and unwieldy for the modern battlefield, and too expensive. I favor lighter pieces that are more mobile and that can be served by crews with less training. When our enemies begin to be as good at counter-battery fire as we are, anything that cann't shoot and scoot is dead. The best artillery today is probably made in South Africa, but their crews during the Gulf War were so poorly trained that they may as well have been using WWI vintage stuff.

Timber,

As much as we tend to agree, I think you're wrong on this one. The Marines were supposed to fix the enemy near the coast, while the Army ran the Hail Mary around the enemy's right flank. The Corps did far exceed their mission, and that has come to be one of their hallmarks. Bless the Green Machine.

Asherman
I know you don't want to be reminded of the victory won by the air force during the fairly recent campaign to put Milosovich in handcuffs and to stop the genocide of the Muslims in Kosovo. Please give me your "slant" on that and I really believe that air power could be used more and more effectively to cut down on needless expenditure of good troops as the generals of the modern army learn to use airpower more effectively. The air force will always be in support role in a unified command and that is as it should be---I just hope more Army generals will recognize the potential of air power the way Storman Norman did.

In regard to my feelings about the Koreans---I always try to play the role of devils advocate in order to create some controversy. I am however annoyed by the attitude of the SKs at this moment--I also care a great deal about how the US is perceived by our allies and it wouldn't look good to ignore the death of perhaps millions of South Koreans as we forge ahead with our march toward history. Since we are the only superpower it is more and more important that we make our victories as surgical as humanly possible. We should never have to witness long lines of refugees fleeing one way and our war vehicles forcing them off the road going in the opposite direction. I honestly believe that you fail to recognize that we should never have to launch a conventional war as you have just portrayed in this little exercise. As long as Army generals insist that this is the way war will always be fought then it will always be a self fullfilling prophecy and forever self perpetuating. I dream of something different but not to the extent that I am unrealistic. Don't worry Asherman there will always be a need for the army to take care of the prisoners.

You have a point, Asherman, but I have a bias toward The Corps. In fact, Nov 10 is a big date on my calendar. And, boy, South Africa turns out some really, really nice artillery, to which their own gunners are not the equal. Incidentally, South Africa also has a respectable Armored Fighting Vehicle platform of great adaptability and particular suitedness for urban combat.

I believe the Armored Artillery system that was cancelled was The Crusader. The unit boasted greater range and argued better surviveability than current Self Propelled Armored Artillery but posed significant cost and production assest allocation issues. Developments in rocketry, such as the follow-on system to the MLRS, and new range-enhancing developments for existing gun systems coupled with impending improved, fully automated rapid reloading and relaying systems for big guns rendered the mission of the piece redundant. A number of the system's innovations are being incorporated into the Next Generation "Objective Force Artillery" now in development for planned deployment later this decade and beyond.

A few relatively cheaper, simpler, more mobile, more plentiful artillery pieces delivering equivalent weight of fire on a given target in a given amount of time are more than the equal of a more costly piece able to do the same amount of damage ... and the bottom line with artillery is throw weight. I don't hesitate to say today's battlefield might offer Crusader gainful employment, but it would be overpaid and its position will soon become redundant and therefore irelevant. The money can better be used elsewhere, with better long-term effect. I may be a bit Pro-Military, but I was anti-Crusader Artillery System.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/crusader/



timber.

interesting thoughts and opinions. just listening in. november 10th is a big date on my calendar too.

Thanks Asherman - that was as good as the info I looked up on the web and in the NYT!

Timber,

What was I thinking? Of course, you're right that project was Crusader.

Bunny,

Thank you for your kind remarks. This thread has been interesting largely due to Timber, George, and numerous others. I greatly respect Setanta's learning, though our approach to modern problems seems often to vary. For some reason this particular thread seems to have drawn some serious thought rather than the knee-jerk rant of a gang of True Believers. The subject of War is so emotional that deeply held prejudices often shortcircuit brain functions.

Well, it is a subject that certainly short-circuits mine - it is so unimaginable to actually think of doing it - but it has been interesting to read the thoughts of those for whom it is clearly an oft-visited discussion.

Bunny,

We can not escape political conflict, and war is the ultimate political arguement. Nations exist to obtain for their leaders, or their citizens security, stability, and economic plentitude. No one wants to be oppressed, or to be forced into some particular way of living. We don't want to give up that which our history has brought us. These are the common aspirations and fears of almost every individual in our species who has ever lived.

The reality is that the interests of one individual, or group is often at varience with other individuals and/or groups. Things are always changing. A good crop year might be followed with a poor season, and the fat child may die of starvation. Some are motivated by greed, or lust, or the simple need to dominate and inflict pain on others. The Law forces each of us to forego some of our liberty, but we never really like it. Our history may condition us to favor expansion, or passive withdrawl. Both can cause problems. We want more, and the more we have the greater our fear of loss. These are also facts that drive political conflict.

War goes back to the very beginnings of human culture. Hunters invaded new territories in search of game to survive, and the hunting grounds were defended so that a tribe would be able to feed it's people. There was no hand wringing over casualties, the struggle was for survival. Probably it was the women who eased us into a settled life of agriculture, and the food production made possible a much better life, and was more predictable. The nomadic tribes saw and wanted the corn that grew, and they took it, killed the farmer and enslaved the family. Farming communities organized their own warriors, and waged war with their neighbors always seeking more, seeking security and stability.

Throughout the long history of our species War has existed. Groups that were good at it survived and grew into great empires (a word BTW of relatively recent origin). Weak groups that avoided war ceased to exist and are lost to history. It was so with the egyptions, the Greeks, the Romans and the Chinese and hundreds of others unnamed. People have dreamed and hoped for an unbroken peace that favored themselves and their own group through all the millenia.

There have been some long periods of stability and relative peace. For almost two thousand years Europe stagnated under the hand of a relatively unified Christian Church. China came to so dominate East Asia that it's system pulsated through dynastic change rather than from interaction with neighbors of near equal strength. In both examples there were some magnificent cultural achievements. Ultimately both were also stagnant, technological progress was slow, and living conditions never really improved for most people. Both ultimately fell apart, but that's another story.

The religeous warfare of the Reformation was as brutal as anything in modern military history. Brother against brother, child against parent, the killing was endless and mostly over theological footnotes. The killing and attempts to censor scientific thought were factors in the rise of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment thinkers desparetly wanted to change the way people live, to find some means by with the individual could have the liberty to peacefully pursue their own interests. Of course, that was the thinking that gave rise to the United States, and the glory of the Ages, the Constitution of the United States. A new Federal Power where the People ruled rather than some despot who ruled by right of birth, or the use of force, or religeous doctrine.

O.K., I know this is getting long and that the point hasn't yet come into view. However, I want you to know that War has been the motor driving human civilization always toward the dream of universal peace favoring one group, because what is peace for one group is resisted and rejected by others.

It is because some think about War and its consequences that the most of the population can dream of the tooth-fairy. Be assured there are as many out there thinking of how to harm you, as there are here who are thinking how to sell you a new environmentally friendly widgit. It is a mark of how well our system has worked that so many in the Western world can hold such unrealistic dreams about how the world runs. whereever did the notion come that bullies can be bought off? There are people who have served in the military who seem to think that war can be fought without killing, or destruction. Everyone believes that entitlement programs for themselves are mandatory, despite the most elemental economics.

There aren't enough resources in the world to bring the poor of Southwest Asia, South America and Africa up to the life-style of the poorest welfare drug-addict in America. Our media is inescapable, and the dreams our adverisers sell is more addictive than heroin. Everyone wants the life style of movie stars. In America some want it all without studying or working. Much of the rest of the world resents our wealth. The government of our country is responding and acting in accordance with the Will of the People as demonstrated by the life styles and demands that we make as a group. Republicans and Democrats are merely the mechanism that we use to insure that the Will of the People be heard, and that no single group or individual might ever come to totally dominate our system

Asherman
At long last you acknowledge that deeply held prejudices often short circuit brain functions.

I do admire your writing ability and hope there are no deeply held animosities in our little exchange of ideas.

I am a little hurt that you ignored my request for your analysis of the Kosovo campaign conducted by the Air Force.

Perception,

I've never said anything different. True Belivers, of whatever stripe, should be regarded with suspicion. The study of War is a subject that provokes intense emotions, but requires the student to the highest standards of objectivity. Wishful thinking, or dedication to some ideological stance, can lead to terrible consequences. Neither I, nor any of the others here who have spoken so eloquently regarding the current Korean situation like or desire the consequences that inevitable accompany military conflict.

Kosovo is off point, and I am not presently ready to discuss that campaign in the detail it deserves.

I harbor no animosity toward you, though I wish you could reign in your propensity to overstate your case and the use perjoritive words.

Asherman
These forums are a form of intertainment and enjoyment for me and it is always a sourse of wonderment for me to observe the long list of participants who take themselves so seriously that I wonder about the condition of their digestive system.

On other forums I have been guilty of "baiting" in order to create a wild and ill thought out response but on this thread I am trying to confine my statements to merely advocating a slightly different point of view from the popular widely held opinions of the majority.
Since I have no desire of offend you or anyone on this forum I will modify my statements in accordance with your objections.